Humans naturally cooperative, altruistic, social

September 8, 2011

The condition of man is a condition of war, wrote 17th-century philosopher Thomas Hobbes. A quick glance through history books and today's news headlines certainly seems to support the longstanding idea that humans by nature are aggressive, selfish and antagonistic.

But this view simply doesn't fit with scientific facts, write researchers featured in the new book "Origins of Altruism and Cooperation" (Springer, 2011), edited by Robert W. Sussman, PhD, and C. Robert Cloninger, MD. The book's authors argue that humans are naturally cooperative, altruistic and social, only reverting to violence when stressed, abused, neglected or mentally ill.

The book, which now is available, presents evidence supporting this idea from a range of academic perspectives, including anthropology, psychiatry, biology, sociology, religion, medicine and more.

"Cooperation isn't just a byproduct of competition, or something done only because both parties receive some benefit from the partnership," says Sussman, professor of physical anthropology in Arts & Sciences. "Rather, altruism and cooperation are inherent in primates, including humans."

For example, Sussman says, chimpanzees have been observed to adopt unrelated, orphaned infants, despite the significant amount of effort and time required to care for the infants.

Sussman and Cloninger write in the book's preface that examining the influences that underlie human behavior is critical to understanding why conflicts arise among peoples and nations in the modern world and to finding the best ways to promote peaceful, productive interaction among humans worldwide.

"Prosocial behavior is an essential component of health and happiness in human beings," says Cloninger, the Wallace Renard Professor of Psychiatry at the School of Medicine. "Selfish and uncooperative behavior, on the other hand, is a sign of mental dysfunction because it is strongly associated with life dissatisfaction and ill health."

In addition to chapters co-authored by Sussman and Cloninger, the book includes articles by two other WUSTL faculty members  Peter Benson, PhD, assistant professor of sociocultural anthropology, and Jane Phillips-Conroy, PhD, professor of anatomy and neurobiology and of anthropology  and other academic experts from around the world.

Topics of the book's chapters  which range from relationships among howler monkeys to the influences of modern Western culture on human spirituality  were taken from discussions and presentations held at a 2009 conference at WUSTL titled "Man the Hunted: The Origin and Nature of Human Sociality, Altruism and Well-Being."

The conference, organized by Sussman and Cloninger, was the first of its kind to bring together international academics across disciplines to examine the evolution of cooperation, altruism and sociality in primates and humans.

Related Stories

Despite popular theories to the contrary, early humans evolved not as aggressive hunters, but as prey of many predators. "Humans are no more born to be hunters than to be gardeners," argues Robert W. Sussman, Ph.D., professor ...

Debates about altruism are often based on the assumption that it is either unique to humans or else the human version differs from that of other animals in important ways. Thus, only humans are supposed to act on behalf of ...

It is a widely accepted view in both research and popular literature: our ancient ancestors were hunters; aggressive, competitive and natural killers. This “Man the Hunter” idea has long influenced our understanding of ...

(PhysOrg.com) -- Cain and Abel certainly displayed it and the three daughters of King Lear proved the point too - families contain a mixture of the selfish and those who put themselves out to help others.

Researchers at the Yerkes National Primate Research Center have shown chimpanzees have a significant bias for prosocial behavior. This, the study authors report, is in contrast to previous studies that positioned chimpanzees ...

Recommended for you

(Phys.org)—A pair of researchers, one with Louisiana State University, the other the University of Michigan has conducted a study on the benefits of proactive policing and have found an example where removing it appeared ...

Textiles represent one of the earliest human craft technologies and applied arts, and their production would have been one of the most important time, resource and labour consuming activities in the ancient past.

The mummified remains of a 7-month-old baby boy and pieces of skull from two teenage Triceratops underwent computed tomography (CT) scans Saturday, Sept. 16, at Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, in hopes ...

The first analysis of a Neanderthal boy's skull uncovered in Spain suggests that he grew much like a modern boy would, in another sign that our extinct ancestors were similar to us, researchers said Thursday.

40 comments

There is NO SUCH THING as ALTRUISM! It's a stupid concept. Everyone does everything for a reason; even if it's only a "warm and fuzzy feeling" reason. Even Mother Teresa was laying up her store in Heaven! Altruism is a cool concept but, at it's core, breaks down in reality. Just sayin....

There is NO SUCH THING as ALTRUISM! It's a stupid concept. Everyone does everything for a reason; even if it's only a "warm and fuzzy feeling" reason.

You are right assuming that everything is done for a reason.You are wrong, however, in assuming that altruism is defined by "not done for a reason".It's the kind of reasons that separate selfish deeds from unselfish deeds. Someone who gives away material advantages to somebody else in order to feel that "warm and fuzzy" feeling but without any material advantage for himself is, by definition, an altruist.

Fact is that the majority of people eagerly refuse any "warm and fuzzy feeling" for the sake of their own material and often unethical advantage.

Hmmm nothing about tribalism or the natural tendency of humans to treat fellow tribal members altruistically while treating those from competing tribes with animosity.http://rechten.el...RID2.pdf

"chimpanzees have been observed to adopt unrelated, orphaned infants, despite the significant amount of effort and time required to care for [them]."

-An early example of assimilation to increase tribal size, without having to suffer a pregnancy? Chimps have also been observed making war on other groups:

"The objective of the 10-year campaign was clearly to capture territory, the researchers concluded. The Ngogo males could control more fruit trees, their females would have more to eat and so would reproduce faster, and the group would grow larger, stronger and more likely to survive."http://www.nytime...imp.html

for those of you not agreeing with that narrow version of human interactions being just selfish, robotic, predictable behavior patterns, like some seem to believe in -i highly recommend this Adam Curtis documentary http://en.wikiped..._series)BBC 2007

Apologies then Frajo. I still live in hope that not all humans are so selfish to need anything (even warm fuzzy feelings) in return for assisting others. Sometimes 'just because i can' is good enough.

Sorry pseudo-Xian, assisting perceived enemies is suicidal and pathological. Making the world more peaceful means understanding this entire equation and trying to eliminate the reasons some groups/tribes are in conflict with others... rather than wishing it were not so and acting as if it weren't.

Pretending doesn't solve problems other than the trouble of discomfort. Ignoring conflict does not resolve it. It only makes it a bigger problem for you or others.

Now I understand ryggesogn2 and his ilk. :)

Even St. Frajo has enemies. See how he uses the prejudicial word 'ilk' with a smiley face afterward? This is a typical religionist sentiment. Religion subsists on the 'us vs them' perception.

Even St. Frajo has enemies. See how he uses the prejudicial word 'ilk' with a smiley face afterward? This is a typical religionist sentiment. Religion subsists on the 'us vs them' perception.

It is also typical of tribalists, team-builders. Team-builders tolerate nonsense in order to assemble teams of mutual up-raters, rather than judging supporters on individual merits. This exacerbates conflict.

Frajo seeks to create the very mechanism which makes conflict resolution impossible; tribalism.

for those of you not agreeing with that narrow version of human interactions being just selfish, robotic, predictable behavior patterns,

It really depends on what one defines as selfish. Does selfish mean anything that is done out of preference? Then yes: in that case altruism is selfish (even sacrificing oneself could then be said to be motivated by a preference over the perceived alternative)

Of course then there is also totally random behavior. I like the concept of "acts of random kindness" in which you just go out and do some random good deed to some random person - just for the hell of it. (OK, if you want to be pedantic about it then that, too, is selfish because I just love the confused look on people's faces whenever I do it.)

If selfish just means 'for personal gain' then that, too, must be examnied closely. 'Gain' is not restricted to 'material gain'.

It really depends on what one defines as selfish. Does selfish mean anything that is done out of preference? Then yes: in that case altruism is selfish (even sacrificing oneself could then be said to be motivated by a preference over the perceived alternative)

i agree, the definition of the the term 'selfish' is really the crux of the matter. it is a human definition that we are dealing with here. this topic is of course highly controversial, and it should be! does the term egoistic or selfish do any justice to the complex reality of living organisms or systems, and if so is the selfish action taken, really taken for ones own preference or for the preference of the whole species / system. And at what level of the system should we look when defining that preference? is the individual a closed system or is it part of a greater system? i do not want to sound esoteric here! i just think it is very important to look at the individual while not ignoring the bigger picture.

I think you are being selfish by not bothering to use proper punctuation and capitalization, and paragraphs, thereby making your posts harder to read just because you see some value in a pointless affectation.

Its late, I'm tired and stumbled across your nonsense Otto, quite by chance. I can only surmise that you are a warmonger that rejects compromise and finding common ground. A sharp edged cricket bat into your head might help (it would help me feel better).

your nonsense Otto A sharp edged cricket bat into your head might help (it would help me feel better).

You saw Inglourious Basterds?

You seem pretty violent yourself. But then, violence against outsiders is not really a bad thing is it? It doesnt FEEL bad. And peaceniks get very perturbed when nirvana gets interrupted by a little harsh reality dont they? Hard to chant with the 6:00 news on tv isnt it?

The article actually does touch on the tribal dynamic of internal altruism in conjunction with external hostility.

"The book's authors argue that humans are naturally cooperative, altruistic and social, only reverting to violence when stressed, abused, neglected or mentally ill."

-The human condition has always been a condition of stress. Pop pressure is what forces life to inhabit new niches and evolve to suit. It naturally creates competition for resources.

Humans only made this far worse by eliminating those natural elements which kept their numbers in check. They were only left with themselves as competition, driven by a reproductive rate which did not have time to adjust accordingly.

Humans learned to defend themselves and their families by forming into groups, as many other species do. The groups with greater internal cohesion coupled with external animosity consistantly fared better in competition.cont

This is how humans mitigate stress. They develop strong bonds within their groups based on mutual trust, cooperation, and assistance. They ALSO protect the group together against competition from others outside the group.

One observes these traits among members of ranging mutual buttrubber groups, who enjoy pouncing on interlopers and threatening them with cricket bats. Very educational.

See its not your particular dogma that is worth fighting for, it is the comraderie and esprit de corps which gives you all such a thrill isnt it bluehigh? Frajo?

if you mean by any other measure:- per capita- percentage of GDP- in relation to military expenditure (which can be argued to be 'negative' foreign aid)

... then the US doesn't even make the top 20.

The UN target is 0.7% of GDP (only 5 nations actually do that or better: Sweden, Norway, Denmark, the Netherlands and Luxembourg). Average of the top 22 nations is .45% of GDP. The US ranks 22nd on that list with 0.19%

...and 76% of the foreign Aid from the US didn't even come from the people (i.e. via governement programs originating as taxpayer dollars) but from donations by wealthy individuals.

So there's really not much basis for saying that 'Americans' are the most generous in the world - quite the opposite.

A lovely sentiment coming from an organization that generates no income of it's own, other than what countries voluntarily give it. And let's not forget that the US funds just about one quarter of the UN's finances (and it used to be fully 1/4). Funny how things work, huh?

76% of the foreign Aid from the US didn't even come from the people (i.e. via governement programs originating as taxpayer dollars) but from donations by wealthy individuals.

Actually the ODA statistic I was talking about doesn't count private donations. And anyway, how does this do anything to justify anti-american sentiments? Shouldn't people be comforted by the fact that the constituents generally aren't as heartless as their government?

So there's really not much basis for saying that 'Americans' are the most generous in the world

. And let's not forget that the US funds just about one quarter of the UN's finances

22%. And they got THAT deal after basically not paying anything for two decades in which they were supposed to pay 26%.

But it doesn't change the numbers on foreign aid one bit: The US is pretty lame when it comes to sharing its wealth. It even ranks behind Portugal and Greece (or New Zealand).

Without the private donations it doesn't even hold the top spot by volume.

And anyway, how does this do anything to justify anti-american sentiments?

It doesn't . Just pointing out the obvious that one should take a good, hard look before spouting sentiments like "Giving out more developmental aid than any other nation in the world!". Might be that you're making yourself a bit of a laughing stock because the mock-sarcasm is not so far from reality. The US is not putting in its share - by long shot.

Just pointing out the obvious that one should take a good, hard look before spouting sentiments like "Giving out more developmental aid than any other nation in the world!".

And I was just pointing out the obvious that people love to hate on the US based on disingenuous premises.

Where's Japan (3rd largest economy) and China (2nd economy) in this "sharing" discussion? Hmm, Japan is right where the US is (or worse) and China is no where to be seen at all. Germany and UK (5 & 6) hang out in the middle, is that their share?? And a gold star to India (4th), for their 15M.

I'll be the first to admit, in any discussion, that we have done some really crappy crap (see: imperialist exploitation, etc.), and continue to, but Europe is no less culpable, the UK, the Dutch, the Spanish, everyone, and the rest often don't support even basic freedoms of speech or human equality. Sorry, if I'm inclined to tell you to eat a big fat bag of dates.

Where's Japan (3rd largest economy) and China (2nd economy) in this "sharing" discussion? Hmm, Japan is right where the US is (or worse) and China is no where to be seen at all. Germany and UK (5 & 6) hang out in the middle, is that their share?? And a gold star to India (4th), for their 15M.

This seems to be a standard smokescreen: "X is bad. But Y and Z are also not quite as good as they could be so it's perfectly OK for X to be bad"

Sorry, I can't follow that sort of logic at all (unless you had claimed that Y and Z were also great in the first place)

and the rest often don't support even basic freedoms of speech or human equality.

Then there's the niggling detail of 'supporting' such things and the reality of it. PR about 'fighting for democracy' is nice and all - but when one looks at what types of regimes result and are supported -and all you see are dictatorships - one needs to start thinking about whetehr one should believe in the PR or not.

I think you are being selfish by not bothering to use proper punctuation and capitalization, and paragraphs, thereby making your posts harder to read just because you see some value in a pointless affectation.

huh? - mental caveman doing the punctuation police.hate to inform you that about 80% of internet users are non native english speakers. (frightening i know) heres a tip: breath deeply and get over it!

Sorry, I can't follow that sort of logic at all (unless you had claimed that Y and Z were also great in the first place)

Good thing I didn't use that logic then, huh?

Again, what I DID say is that people are anti-American for reasons that are perpetrated by every other major world player (many of those guilty of worse) but the US gets all the hate. It's wholly disingenuous and indicates that that hate stems not from those reasons people use as their excuse to justify their hate.

Perhaps you are American.

Back to the original issue for a second...

How many Americans do you know (not from TV)? My fiance' and I had 2 friends (a German and her boyfriend from Malta, both living in London) visit a month ago and they marveled time and again at how helpful and friendly Americans are (in a city of about 3 million), that people would make eye contact smile and nod at them without knowing them, and would walk a block with them out of their way to point them in the right direction.

Maybe you jsut need to get off the 'peopel are anti-american' wagon?Maybe people just *seem* anti-american to you because every time someone says "america ...woot...numer 1" they just present the plain facs: that apart from anything military america isn't number one in anything? Least of all 'civil freedom', 'democracy', 'freedom of speech', and anything else you care to name that might be termed as worthy as a measure of being a 'great' country.

Again, what I DID say is that people are anti-American for reasons that are perpetrated by every other major world player (many of those guilty of worse) but the US gets all the hate. It's wholly disingenuous and indicates that that hate stems not from those reasons people use as their excuse to justify their hate.

You are simplifying things. A person who expresses her disenchantment with certain aspects of the US is not obliged to counterbalance her criticism with the positive aspects or with permanently mentioning lighthouses like Angela Davis or Noam Chomsky. Criticism is benign, defaming is hostile.

Apart from that there are lots of people out there who have lost innocent family members by military actions of the US plus allies. Their hate is a natural reaction that is prolonged by the stubborn refusal to apologize.

And no, natural hate does not aim solely at the US. But you'd have to access non-US media to get a realistic impression of tensions abroad.

Frajo - Nobody is obliged to do anything, but if they want future opinions respected, they will exhibit some appropriate balance. Also, your victim hypothetical is changing/expanding the subject of altruism or lack thereof. I thought you guys were talking about the actor, not the ones that respond to altruism/selfishness.

The US gives. A LOT! That's all emsquared said. You guys aren't really having a reasoned debate here, it seems. It sure seems like the responses to em were all trying to expand the subject in order to have an opportunity to highlight the negatives of US foreign actions. No one likes to talk about the good things bad people/groups do. It's no different than someone reacting to someone who points out how much good a child molester did in his life. I guess some people need things to be dualistic and simple to reduce internal stress. I don't know.

Of course individuals and groups are both altruistic and selfish. Of COURSE we all benefit from altruism. I might define altruism as where the person(s) who *most* benefit from the action are *not* the person(s) who commit the action.

We're selfish for genetic survival, and altruistic when we can be, because that gives long term benefits in the form of complex feedback mechanisms that most can see play out over long duration. Does there need to be more to it than that? ??????????

Apart from that there are lots of people out there who have lost innocent family members by military actions of the US plus allies. Their hate is a natural reaction that is prolonged by the stubborn refusal to apologize.

And frajo does not care whether these lives were unavoidably lost in the process of saving far more.

And frajo fails to place the blame where it properly lies - with the enemy who caused the conflict in the first place.

Frajos opinions originate in irrational hatred of authority. Frajos comments are defamatory and hostile to say the least. Frajos opinions have nothing to do with reality.

Frajo thinks that Nazis should have remained unopposed because foreign forces had to invade the continent and innocent lives were unavoidably lost. I suppose even Alexander was remiss in defeating the Persians on their own ground?

Maybe people just *seem* anti-american to you because every time someone says "america ...woot...numer 1" they just present the plain facs: [insert anti-americansim here]

See but that's not what happens, here. Ever.

Who says that? No one. If someone said "America is #1" at something that they weren't, most of the Americans on physorg would be among the first to say, "Actually...".

This isn't what happened above, and it isn't what happens 99% of the time on this site (or anywhere) when people take any excuse to spread ill will against the US, or outright say Americans are evil, Americans dying is a good thing, etc. that are seemingly accepted parts of the rhetoric here.

You say that about any other "group" (race, nation, etc.) at all and people come out of the wood work (including Americans) to say that's not acceptable.

And not to burst your bubble, while trends indicate it may not be for long, US is presently still the largest economy and #1 FDI received country. ;)

Please sign in to add a comment.
Registration is free, and takes less than a minute.
Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.